Breaking the Universe's Speed Limit

Marcel,

Most of what John is referring to is thermodynamics and phase spaces this should be obvious to all physicists.

"This appears to be the typical struggle when we mix elements of our reality and element[s] of a real universe as can be deduced from various accepted theories.

1- future, present and past are true in our reality because we have no choice about it, this is the way we think and work. Period. There is no sense in screaming and kicking about it.

2- The real universe is different from our reality and can be inferred/deduced from literal understanding of SR & GR. and applying it to something that exists"

You are deducing your conclusion is "true" from various "accepted theories". Your conclusion may be "valid" when deduced from your "premises". Telling John that (1) is true and there is no sense in screaming and kicking about it is dogmatic and rude. In (2) it seems you are deducing the true nature of reality through mathematical realism. I agree that the perception of time is better understood in other disciplines. However, I find it interesting there are no (credible) accounts of someone remembering the future. Why is it necessary to create the dichotomy between our reality and that of SR and GR? We are apart of that reality, we are "something that exists".

Most of these posts are nothing more than jargon filled talking points. John is genuinely curious and he is creating his own model about this subject while everyone else, myself included, is pedantic and snobbish. John is a passionate, curious and stubborn autodidact which is in the spirit of Einstein. He has no funding or experienced colleagues to assist him. We should motivate this type of person to keep going and not shut them down and ignore their ideas. Marcel perhaps you also have that independent spirit too. There is a fine line between constructive criticism and ego crushing comments. Save the latter for the celebrity scientists they are the ones who need the reality check.

If I may interject here, I appreciate and agree wholeheartedly with Nemo's defense of John's posts. I happen to see John and myself as fellow travelers in many regards. Moreover, the concept which John is working mightily to describe and explain in his own words is, if I'm not mistaken, his own version of the same view which I've espoused regarding the nature of time, and which I've tried to set forth in purely qualitative terms in several essays such as those which may be found here and here. It's my own view that this represents a different and useful paradigm for thinking about the fundamental nature of time, as I have discussed elsewhere in this blog and others.

jcns

One more proof of C-field announced yesterday:

"The longest-running project in NASA's history has completed its mission. Gravity Probe B has finally confirmed that the Earth drags spacetime around as it rotates like a spoon twisting in a jar of honey, mission scientist announced at a May 4 NASA press briefing."

"Other experiments had already confirmed this "frame-dragging" effect, predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity."

Edwin Eugene Klingman

To suggest that "our understanding of spacetime and, in turn, the speed of light, may need to be rewritten" without referring to the possible falsehood of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (Is the speed of light really independent of the speed of the emitter?) is not quite fair.

Strange, for the reports I am getting suggest nothing about a C* field. These results are basically analogous to the Faraday effect in electromagnetism. A moving charge is associated with a magnetic field. In a weak field limit the Einstein field equations are very similar to the Maxwell equations, and the motion of mass, or the rotation of a mass, is associated with a gravitational analogue of a magnetic field.

Cheers LC

Dear Pentcho,

If we consider photons as electromagnetic waves, then it is very likely that they behave like phonons, i.e. waves in elastic media: They do not directly depend on the motion of the emitter relative to the receiver, and their velocity of propagation is limited.

In so far, the emitter theory by Ritz was presumably wrong while Ritz was definitely correct in that the future does not yet exist.

We need not imagine photons like particles (bullets) because static electric and magnetic fields in "empty" space do obviously not require a carrying medium. They might rather constitute their own ether, possibly subject to dragging effects which were already discussed at the time of Stokes.

Anyway, there is no reason to look for a mistake by questioning c, since Poincarè's round-trip (de)synchronization is obviously an illegitimate merger of past and future.

Regards,

Eckard

Lawrence,

I would think you were joking except you seldom show signs of humor. If you had read my essay or any of my hundred or so comments, you would know that the C-field *is* the gravito-magnetic analog of the electro-magnetic B-field.

Wake-up and smell the coffee.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I am studying a my article, and I obtain some problem that I don't understand totally.

The first problem is the mass definition: it seem not a fundamental constant in the Einstein equations, because only the metric tensor and the stress-energy tensor are the fundamental quantities in relativity, so that only a metric, and energy-momentum, measure is enough.

The second problem is the entanglement problem, with my Scheibe equation or the Wheeler-DeWitt equation there is not a quantum solution that depends on the speed of light, but only on the metric tensor in the spacetime: so if I obtain a zero-point energy (single quantum system) of a macroscopic state near 0° K (like spinglass system), and I make a separation in two macroscopic states near 0° K , then the change of the spin orientation near 0° K can be used to obtain the change of the quantum system of the other part in an instantaneous time (speed limit greater of speed of the light); so it seem possible a transmission between two entanglement-transmission apparatus of a character encoding (there is ever the speed limit for the apparatus, but it is possible a speed violation for the transmission).

It seem possible a multiple transmission using a little perturbation that change, and bring back in the initial state, a little set of the macroscopic state.

Saluti

Your gravito-magnetic field within your C* field theory is a completely different notion than the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses.

Cheers LC

You don't know what you're talking about.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

If one understands reality then issues over whether light speed has historically altered can be put into a proper context. One would have to find entities where their perceived rate of change(it might be pulsation, movement, light shift, whatever)throws up an anomaly. That is, the rate of change is different from what would be expected given relative movement. However, since these variables are intertwined, ie one calulates space and relative movement as a function of light quality, I am not sure if it is possible to escape this conundrum, ie light may always appear to be constant because it provides the basis of the calculation. It might be a case of (going back to my chilhood when watching TV), 'yes it is the transmission that is actually faulty but all you can do is pointlessly adjust the controls'.

I don't know, I'm not a physicist, I'm just pointing out the fundamental nature of the problem.

Paul Reed

Edwin,

That's uncalled for. Lawrence isn't the only one who sees no role for an additional field to explain the Lense-Thirring effect.

Tom

Tom,

I've told you that there is not an "additional" field, but you wish not to understand this point. As usual you ignore what I've stated, and simply repeat what you've said before. That's why I try to ignore you. Lawrence has not studied my essays, nor asked me questions, nor read the four books I've written on this point, but has the arrogance to tell me that my theory does not concern gravito-magnetism. His statements about my theory that are incorrect, based on nothing but his ignorance of my theory:

"Your gravito-magnetic field within your C* field theory is a completely different notion than the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses."

He did not have the grace to say, "If you mean this..." or "What do you mean by...". No, he implies that I have been developing a theory of gravito-magnetism for five years and I don't know what I'm talking about. Only he understands gravito-magnetism.

I have opinions about what it is that you and Lawrence don't understand about physics, but it's been evident for over a year that you and Lawrence do not appreciate my arguments, and I do not appreciate yours, so I don't take it seriously. I suspect Lawrence's problem is tied to his beliefs about geometry and symmetry, and that he can't see outside that box. But whatever drives his statement, it was inappropriate. And considering some of the things that you have said in comments to other participants, I don't need you to tell me what's uncalled for, either.

Lawrence could have simply said, "The gravito-magnetic field within your C-field theory appears to be completely different from my notion of the magnetic analogue in general relativity due to moving or rotating masses."

That would have been a true statement and not insulting, only a statement of his own limitations.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

"I've told you that there is not an 'additional' field, but you wish not to understand this point."

Who could? If it were not an additional field, you would have no need to call it by an addiitonal name.

Tom

With all respect, I think you undermine your case when you claim support from sources that clearly do not refer to your theory's predictions, and in a non-trivial sense, contradict them.

The Maeda et al paper on the non-dispersing wave packets of the Bohr atom does not describe a natural guiding wave that determines particle position, in the way that you have it. The classical Bohr planetary model, as the authors describe, is employed as an idealization of an orbital electron - that is, while we know that an electron does not really obey a circular orbit around an atomic nucleus as Bohr originally thought, it was (and is) instructive to think of it that way, in order to assign the electron any classical properties at all. Using the pulsed electric field, the experimenters find, sharply defines the ideal particle location by reducing the particle's quantum state to a classical orbit. This demonstrates that classical properties were native to the electron all along - however, so were the quantum properties that we already knew about, which supports wave-particle duality, not the locally realistic theory you espouse.

The importance of these results is to open the door to new experimentation on the electron as a classical object, other than the well known "bullet" scenario. We already have plenty of results on electron quantum mechanical properties.

Were Maeda et al to support your C field theory, you would not only have to show that the quantum mechanical electron model is wrong (i.e., that the electron truly obeys a classical orbit without the advantage of imposing microwave pulses), but that Kepler was also wrong (i.e., that planetary orbits are really circular after all). This latter conclusion follows, because a classical planetary model unified by a singular field has to hold for all orbital relations. Ironically, it would probably be easier to argue why planetary orbits are only _apparently_ elliptical than to argue why the electron orbit is only apparently dispersed.

To the idea that confirmation of the Lense-Thirring effect supports your results:

I doubt that many relativists ever expected it to turn out otherwise, because the effect is a straightforward prediction of the interaction of mass with spacetime. Equally, quantum theorists tend not to get overly excited these days at another new confirmation of quantum nonlocality. These tests are important to maintain scientific integrity; at this point, however, only negative results (a la Michelson-Morley) would be Earth-shaking.

Edwin, I offer this criticism in the interest of intellectual discourse. If we can keep it that way and refrain from personal references, I would be happy to continue. If my understanding is lacking, I would be happy to be set straight.

Tom

Tom,

You claim that "If my understanding is lacking, I would be happy to be set straight."

I find that not to be the case. I don't recall once that you've ever been 'set straight'.

When you encounter my mathematical arguments, you ignore them. You ignore all my statements. You don't evidence an open mind. I argue to defend a theory, some argue from psychological need. Such people can't be 'set straight'. They're a waste of time.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Okay. I get it. Nothing can possibly be wrong with your argument, so something must be wrong with me.

They're not necessarily exclusive.

I told you I wasn't going to keep trying to kick the ball just so you could pull it away. When I respond to your arguments for the N'th time and you ignore my responses, I've simply decided not to go for N-plus-1.

You have your style of arguing and you have your set beliefs. I don't like your style and I don't agree with your beliefs, and I don't think you are serious about trying to understand my theory. I think you just argue for the sake of argument. I don't think you receive, you only transmit.

If I've judged you wrong, so be it. I've tried to work with you and it's not working.

Dear Edwin,

While you called my essay refreshing, I am not sure whether or not you carefully checked m< arguments and arrived at the same admittedly heretical conclusions.

What about my attempt to understand your gravito-magnetic field and Peter Jackson's claims, I have to admit that only the latter is not trustworthy to me. Admittedly I did not take the effort to read all of the nearly 400 related posts, and I am pretty sure you didn't read the 400 concerning my essay.

Maybe, we can nonetheless support each other by critical remarks. I was a bit deterred by the title of your essay and the introductory figures. Maybe, you shoehorned an alternative to theories that are leading from mere speculations to even more unbelievable speculations into the given topic.

Can you please guide non-physicists like me to an easily understandable explanation of your idea? It could begin with revelations where and why accepted theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, and it should end with at least exemplary indication of consequences. Most important to me is a compelling chain of logic arguments, if necessary supported by means of convincing figures.

It might be exciting for you if newly reported results of scientific research fit into your argumentation. However, those like me who are not familiar with the matter cannot decide whether the offered interpretation is correct. Almost anything could be turned into a confirming evidence for God, Lorentz contraction, or the final victories of Wehrmacht and communism.

Regards,

Eckard